Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry

Donglegate vs Vaginagate

In summer of 2012, Michigan House Democrat Lisa Brown made an impassioned speech in protest of proposed legislation which would enact upon the abortion industry regulations which she did not approve. Brown ended her speech with the following:

The statement was inflammatory, insinuating that her specific body was of interest to other legislators. It was accusatory, as ‘no means no’ is a widely recognized anti-rape slogan, insinuating in the context used that rape was an issue between the legislators. It was unnecessarily graphic, as the legislation was largely about licensing, insurance, safety measures, and fetal tissue disposal, not Lisa Brown’s vagina. For breaking decorum, she was suspended from speaking on the floor for a few days.

Considering recent events, one would not think this a big deal. After all, people lose their jobs over less overt behavior. This is the proper protocol for handling offensive use of sexual innuendo in a professional setting, right?

Nope.

All hell broke loose among the left-wing press, feminist media, the internet community, and the general female public as the vaginapocalypse rained down upon the heads of Michigan House Republicans. The incident was treated as an act of misogyny, a labeling of women’s bodies as dirty and unacceptable, an attack on reproductive rights, evidence of a conspiracy of patriarchal domination, everything except a disciplinary action related to an individual’s inappropriate, flippant use of sexual innuendo in the context of a serious discussion.

Protest was made against the censure, on the basis that silencing Brown over her glib remark constituted condemning the use of correct terminology for women’s body parts. This was a red herring assertion, given the rest of her statement. The response from the house would have been the same if she had used a slang term. The statement itself was unmerited and out of place.

Discussing it at the time, it seemed like the outrage over the censure was consistent with feminist objection to Victorian morality standards. It must be acceptable to refer to body parts in discussion in a modern, enlightened society, right?

Apparently not, considering the response to Donglegate, in which Adria Richards claimed to be offended after hearing an anatomy reference and a second statement pass between two men sitting behind her at the PyCon Conference in Santa Clara, California.

Richards chose to impose her sensibilities on her colleagues by two means. She publicized the incident, tweeting the photo she took of the two men, along with a complaint about their speech. She also texted event staff, requesting enforcement of the conference’s rules against harassing behavior. In other words, she interpreted a conversation that did not involve her to be a form of harassment, and requested that an authority address it, but first she made sure to openly slander those involved.

The feminist defense of that choice made Richards out to be a combination victim and hero, as if she had suffered some type of damage from overhearing the men’s joke, and overcome an attack by leveling one at them. As the discussion continued, her supporters dug themselves deeper, relating dongle jokes to patriarchy, and offending female sensibilities to assault. They compared perceived importance of the speech involved in the two incidents, but ignored the similar details, and the not-so-similar visibility.

Both incidents took place in professional environments. Both environments had at least some level of expected decorum. Both involved speech with sexual overtones, to which at least one member of the sex opposite that of the speaker took some offense.

In both cases, censure resulted because the behavior was disapproved. In both cases, the reasons for disapproval were the same: Breach of professional decorum, and concern over the offensiveness of the statements made.

The men photographed by Adria Richards, dubbed “the Donglers” by the internet community, were seated in an audience during a presentation, speaking quietly to each other. Their speech was not stated to, stated about, or directed at her. They were not on camera (yet,) nor were they speaking for an audience. Richards simply picked a few disapproved sentences from their conversation, and reacted.

Lisa Brown addressed the speaker of the house directly, and used language which is associated with anti-rape campaigns, thereby insinuating not just sex, but chastisement for an attempted sexual assault. Her statement was made in front of members of the house, and the cameras of the press, during a moment when she had the floor, and therefore everyone’s attention.

Contrary to feminist assertions, Brown’s comment was worse. It was more public, and more targeted. If we must respond to sexual speech with offense, Brown’s comment was more offensive in the suggestion that it contained. If feminist advocates were honest, they would have had the same reaction to both incidents, with either more criticism for Brown, or more support for the Donglers.

The same political and social groups who flipped out over the censure of a politician for her unnecessarily sexualized speech on the Michigan House floor during a televised discussion have been supporting the complaint that got a man fired for a private discussion that was less overt and less inflammatory. Some of them have even protested the idea of providing his family with any financial aid in the wake of his job loss. That effort was condemned as sexist, and everyone associated with it denigrated in blog posts and the discussions taking place in the comments underneath them, for the heinous crime of showing some compassion for the now jobless dongler. All of that response seems to be based on the idea that reference to the penis is, by itself, automatically sexist against women.

What a contrast. Mention of the word vagina draws support from the feminist-influenced public as must-be-protected speech, while discussion even hinting at the concept of a penis draws criticism as a form of aggression. Taking things just at face value, the obvious conclusion is that while feminists treat women’s bodies as something special and sacred, they consider men’s bodies a dangerous affront.

Of course, there is more to the difference in the two responses than that. It isn’t just a matter of body parts. It’s a matter of gender, and gender issues. Yes, feminists do treat women’s bodies as sacred, and men’s as a dangerous affront, but they also treat feminist-defined women’s issues as sacred, and men’s issues as a dangerous affront. Vaginagate wasn’t about the use of the term vagina, nor was it about the inflammatory manner in which it was used. It was about supporting the feminist position on abortion issues, and the feminist politician making the statement.

Reddit feminists discussing the contrast between Donglegate and Vaginagate stated as much, asserting that the two incidents didn’t compare because Brown’s statement was made as part of a political argument against legislation which would place regulations on the abortion industry. They were willing to support speech which they would otherwise find offensive, specifically because a feminist politician said it in support of a feminist cause. They condemned Brown’s critics, not because said critics were sexist or prudish, but because they were criticizing feminist-approved arguments.

The feminist treatment of overheard Dongle jokes and talk of forking repos as harassing behavior is in a way consistent with Vaginagate. Feminists disapprove men, masculinity, and male sexuality, deeming the male body vexatious, and any mention of it vulgar. It isn’t that sexual humor, in and of itself, offends them. It’s offense at humor expressed without feminist approval.

Donglegate wasn’t about men’s bodies, or about inappropriate or inflammatory statements. It wasn’t even really about female sensibilities. Deeply offended as Adria Richards claimed to be, she wasn’t so upset that she couldn’t make similar jokes and worse in her twitter feed. One of the two statements at which she feigned offense was not even innuendo, but a commonly used phrase with no sexual connotations except those Richards applied herself. Her response wasn’t about the men’s words at all. It wasn’t about the feminist attitude toward men’s bodies. It was about the feminist attitude toward men, and how in social settings, women can use perceived victim status to wield against them the power of castigation and character assassination, forcing accommodation whether it is needed or not.

Hannah Wallen (aka Della Burton) became an MRA after weathering the direct impact of feminist advocacy on her family for years. She is the author of Breaking the Glasses, written from an anti-feminist perspective, with a focus on men's rights and sometimes social issues. She also writes and comments on reddit.com as oneiorosgrip.

Elsewhere on AVfM

They also say rape is not about sex but about power! So rape is about control.

So what do they call their actions on the donglers, male birth control options, and child support/custody!?

Oh, that’s a feminist right.

We can’t be rid of them and their legacy soon enough.

Never Blue Again

They also say rape is not about sex but about power! So rape is about control.

When i hear this the following thought comes into my mind. If rape is about power….. why don’t men just beat the shit out of women instead of risking his valuable reproductive organ, risking severe punishment and vilification form the society……. ????

externalangst

Thanks for this Della.

Like most of feminism, the idea that men use sex for power is backwards; as a result of being female projection.

Clearly, men likely use power (wealth, status etc.) for sex.

It is women who most likely use sex for power – resources, protection, proxy violence, etc. Not to mention shaming male sexuality for power as in donglegate & vaginagate.

Roland3337

Welcome aboard, Della! Found your website some months ago, and I thought to myself as I read, “this lady gets it…”

86

“It’s about control.”

That’s been my conclusion as well. Thank you for the well reasoned essay explaining that.

ComradePrescott

Very intelligent and astute observations, Ms. Burton. The parallels between the two and how different the reactions were was very thought provoking.

Also, your direct assessment of Vaginagate was very interesting as well. It changed my view on the event as a result.

I think the real answer is neither – it isn’t that they’re stupid enough to believe what they say. They’re just stupid enough to think we will. It isn’t that they’re too blind to see their own hypocrisy. It’s that they’re blind enough to think it won’t be noticed by the rest of us if they bury it under enough rhetoric and false guilt.

GVrooman

Feminists are generally postmodernists who believe that there is no such thing as objective reality and everything is a construct. When everything is a construct you are no longer capable of lying. All you are doing is voicing constructs. If one construct doesn’t work you can always try another one.

Bewildered

” Feminists are generally postmodernists who believe that there is no such thing as objective reality and everything is a construct ”

When you go down that road don’t expect to remain sane for any appreciable length of time.
No wonder so many of them appear so bat shit crazy.

GVrooman

When I was thinking along postmodernist lines, I was actually starting to feel a little queasy, so I decided to quit. I feel much better now. 🙂

Might be interesting to use that against them. For instance, if everything is a construct, then of course Rape Culture isn’t an actual environmental factor… just a feminist construct, one which can be as easily rejected, or redefined as is done with gender roles and societal standards, turned back on them, and applied to their own assertions about male-female behavior.

Near Earth Object

“BUT they really do seem to be that retarded…”

THEY self-identify as feminists, which suggests a collective.
We refer to them as feminists, which suggests a collective.
Except when they have decided to act in concert…
THEY are not much more than a collection of individuals.

Yes or no, do you regard feminists as your enemy?
If not, then read no further.
If yes, then never underestimate your enemy.

Not that long ago, in the UK, an intellectually—retarded—disabled woman was found having made a habit out of falsely accusing males of rape. In one case, she made the allegation because her “friends” told her to.

In my work at a feminist agency, I speak from experience when I inform you (brother), not all feminists are retarded. Some of them, you might not mind as a sister, some are naive, some are only empowered in the presence of their sisters, some have minor psychological issues, some have major psychological issues—antisocial personality disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and because I need to bring this list to a close, some are plainly evil.

A hearty welcome to Della Burton, and sincere thanks for a thoughtful and compelling article.

You are 100% correct. In fact, I think if you go in with similar critical analysis of most modern gynocentric causes célèbre, you find the control of men through shame at the root of what is happening.

Excellent article by a very intelligent woman. I don’t know much about marking argumentative papers, but if I were to grade you, A+. You back up every argument, and cement it. It was a pleasant read which flowed very well. Thanks so much for this!

Iron Lightning

I’m not saying that you’re a plagiarist since your analysis differs a bit but I think it should be known that the amazing girlwriteswhat did a video on the connection between these exact events 6 days ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jhGRuSvWOc

I think that her analysis is superior but since she wrote maybe a dozen times more than Della the analysis certainly ought to be better.

Thanks, Typhonblue, I didn’t know about that. I said above that “I’m not saying that you’re a plagiarist…” so I never accused anyone of that. It seems to me that both Della and GWW saw this illustrative parallel independently as they analyze the situation slightly differently. I mostly wanted to call attention to GWW’s superior analysis.

Bullshit. I am not saying you are a moron or a shit stirrer or complete fucking idiot for even using that word in response to this post — with no back up.

But I think it should be known that many people have addressed the issues surrounding morons, shit stirrers and complete fucking idiots many times before.

DO NOT do this kind of thoughtless shit on this website.

cvar

Do people anywhere actually fall for that “I’m not saying you’re x, but” line?

It’s really clear that you’re in fact saying they’re x. If you weren’t trying to imply that this piece was plagiarized, you wouldn’t have used the word plagiarized, instead simply saying “I preferred GWW’s take on this in her video [here].” or however you might phrase a preference.

Being on the Europe side of the pond I had not seen the “Lisa Brown” incident so I had to go digging on YouTube – http://youtu.be/BGS9vo1avVg

I didn’t even need to hear the words, just observe her body language (so eloquently contrasted with her talk of her Jewish/Kosher dinner services), so easy and instantaneous to recognise that she knew what she was saying was over the line – and she sought Notoriety and Trouble very publicly.

In that, I’m happy to say Lisa Brown and Adria Richards are equal media whores when it comes to deliberately causing trouble for self promotion, and their evident internal needs for the combinations of Victim-hood and repressed rage they have both displayed so publicly.

Very good article. Organized, logical, intellectually honest, fact-based, and well-written. Thank you, Della. You cut through the crap and exposed a good chunk of the foundation of feminist politics.

DeclanLyons

Excellent article, Della.

If the general public were privy to this sort of argument against feminist martyrs from the get-go, their notoriety would be short-lived and unflattering.

shadowmoses

Women accuses all of her work colleagues of being potential rapists who are obsessed with her vagina = two day suspension

Man makes joke in private to a friend about dongles = Publicly shamed, humiliated and fired.

But Misandry doesn’t exist, right Jezebel?

August Løvenskiolds

“I’d fork his repo” and “big dongles” sound more like something gay men might say than those mean ol’ straight guys trying to oppress da wimminz. This would change donglegate from a feminist imbroglio into a gay-shaming scandal. Had the dongle dude thought to spin Adria as an anti-gay activist, he might have kept his job, particularly in San Francisco, and PC feminists would have completely disowned her.

“But he’s married!” as a counterargument could be spun as an “outing” offense, since a lot of gay men marry women as beards.

I find the whole thing utterly surreal. Take the ‘I’d fork his repo’ comment, for example. If taken as sexual innuendo (and the guy who said it has clarified that was meant quite literally, and was not a sex joke), then it’s a man saying he’d like to have sex with another man. And this is supposed to create a threatening environment… for *women*???

If a random male eavesdropper heard that and complained because he didn’t like the threatening idea of that man going around wanting to have sex with guys such as the eavesdropper, then he’d be laughed at and excoriated as a homophobe, but he least he’d be half-kinda-vaguely-sorta right. But a *woman* hearing it and feeling that the comment had any relevance to her whatsoever…? Just bizarre. I can only conclude that the bitch thinks the universe is all about her.

The canned excuse for a retort will be, ‘talking about and making references to sex and of a sexual nature is offensive’, to which I say FUCK YOU YOU LYING PIGS AND YOUR SEXUAL LIBERATION… it’s liberated so you can dress like a porn star in public and fuck whatever and wherever you want, yet it’s some kind of offense for others to exercise their own free expression in talking about sex? GO FUCK YOURSELVES.

Sex

Tit

Sex

Dingle

Dongle

Twat

Fuck you

The Real Peterman

Yes, it’s perfectly alright if I’m walking down a public street only to be suddenly surrounded by women dressed (or half-dressed) as hookers with “slut” painted on their chests, but god forbid someone go to a conference with tech people (who usually have an offbeat sense of humor) and hear a play on the word “dongle.”

The ‘threatening environment’ argument for feminist speech-limitations in the workplace has always bothered me. I’ve worked in male ‘dominated’ areas. There is nothing threatening about light humor. I think this treatment of speech by feminists makes it harder for young women to integrate into traditionally male fields, not easier. It makes the woman a center of some attention, as men have to alter their behavior for her benefit. Had that occurred on the sidelines of athletic events I photographed when I worked for my small community’s local newspaper, I’d have been extremely uncomfortable. Had someone said, “Don’t say that – there’s a girl here!” I’d have been mortified. My opinion, had I needed to state it, was that I wasn’t ‘a girl’ at those moments. I was a photojournalist.

JinnBottle

This is why, to people who are interested – some well-intentioned, some merely self-interested – in getting sex and romance back to the days “when girls liked boys and boys liked girls” – I say, the sexes can’t even work together anymore, let alone play together.

And all of it, without exception, is the result of a conscious, deliberate plan by people who are interested, for grossly obvious reasons, in getting “girls” to hate “boys”, and can think of sexual and “romantic” relationships only in terms of Power.

And it doesn’t look like all the King’s, *and* Queen’s men, and women, are going to piece this shredded contract back together again real soon.

RMM

Penises are indeed dangerous and evil, according to this lot. In fact, they should require a license!

That’s supposedly penned as a comedy piece, because it takes a couple of lines from a Bill Burr routine, but the result falls absolutely flat when the authoress’ unbridled misandry comes shining through. Vag good, penis bad! Men are dumb and their penis will ruin their life, because they think with their genitals, something we perfect women goddesses never do!

Etc.

As a sidenote, it’s interesting to note that none of my comments, which essentially played a “reverse the genders” game, have made it through the moderation. And to think I even went to the lengths of shortening the warnings that should be attached to the vaginas to four simple words: “Tingling may impair judgement”… Also, given that it seems to have fewer comments than the typical “front page” piece I’m guessing the reception of that tripe wasn’t all that great – though I have no evidence to back this opinion up.

This author is a complete idiot. Trying to hide the self-hate he feels in being a man in the guise of humour. Does he have a son? I doubt it. My son didn’t ‘show it around’ as this moron insists little boys do. Second, just as many women as men cheat. Third, if a man loses everything when he strays (or is accused of this or anything else by a woman) and he loses ‘everything’, why does he lose everything? When a woman can cheat and keep everything – the kids, the house and half his paycheck. And he rounds it off nicely by saying ‘I’ll be warning my daughter’. To fear and dislike boys and men no doubt. What a role model. What a total misandrist, putting girls and by extension women on a pedestal. Gender dinosaurs, your time is up.

The Equalizer

I am happy to say my comments on the above article by Same de Twito got through moderation, as was a reply to a female commenter who asserted that women are less selfish than men. Result!

I included some top insults. RMM, I wonder why your comments didn’t get through? Different moderator perhaps…that we’ll never know. Fruitier language?

The Equalizer

PS, I now realised have contradicted an argument I just presented under another recent AVfM article about the ineffectiveness of shaming male feminists. Damn, I forgot my own recent thinking and went and did it. I stand by my statement that it won’t work. But it’s so tempting!

It’s been a few months since I have had any intimate experience with this particular body part, so because of short term memory problems I googled the word “vagina” and “anatomy” (safe search on) …. And yes it all came back to me …
When the woman (legislator) in question used the word vagina in regards to abortion, shouldn’t she have used the term “Uterus” ????
Is this because it is harder to sexualise a “Uterus” or is she unfamiliar with her own basic anatomy??
Great article … thank you … and I guess I will thank myself for not making personal comments on abortion!!!

The Real Peterman

That’s a great point, Redfield.

onca747

Dear Mizz Lisa Brown… rest assured that you’re vagina, and the entirety of your person in fact, is of less interest to me than a rubber band. (The first thing I spotted on my desk when writing this.) Your shameless playing of the “misogyny” card, the lowest and dirtiest one in the deck, has revealed you to be unqualified to hold any kind of public office, with the possible exception of a refuse collector, which would be an ironic reflection of your stinking brand of divisive rhetoric. May you and your vagina die alone.

It’s doubly hostile as lightbulbs are negative for the environment, so not only does it promote misogyny it causes Glaciers to melt.

It just proves how damaging the patriarchy is to the planet and why all expressions of it in all environments must be legislated away – only feminism has a positive environmental impact, or so some yelp.

Funny How the Canadian Government keeps throwing things like Kyoto under the bus, and the silence from certain quarters is Deafening – and only last week “Canada ‘only nation to leave UN drought agreement’ “.

Now the impact of that on men, women and children across the globe is significant, so I do wonder when some may have a light-bulb moment … or is it that there really is no one home even if the lights are supposedly on.

Mateusz Wacek

I’m glad to see a new contributor, and one with excellent insight.

You summed it up so very well. It is all about power. Feminists want to control what men are able to say, while ensuring that women (well, at least women who fall inline with feminism) are free to speak however the want.

Can we get over this ”if feminists were consistent”, ”if feminists believed their own bullshit” stuff? It always sticks in my craw when I see someone say that, it should be obvious to everyone by now; they aren’t and they don’t.

Feminists are well aware of what their job is, it’s probably the only thing I admire about them; their purity of purpose. They know that it is their job to always come down on the side of the woman, no matter what the circumstances. Feminists supported Lisa Brown because they are ideologically opposed to a woman being punished for anything, they will always push for a woman to be shown leniency, no matter what her crime. Similarly, they will always push for any man guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever, but especially against a woman, to be subject to the most draconian punitive measures possible. All these feminists did was behave like feminists, you give them far, far too much credit when you speak as if they can be expected to display even the slighest shred of even handedness, objectivity, or consistency in anything. Even handedness, objectivity and consistency are not what feminism is about, feminism is about female advocacy, plain and simple, they even put it in the name for our convenience.

The problem isn’t when they scream. The problem is when society allows unmerited complaints to impact upon others, as happened with Donglegate. It’s one thing to wrongfully complain. It’s another when someone may be fired because of a wrongful complaint.

Hypocrite=double-standard. And finally their true colors are more than showing, they are flying high. Articles like this will allow even more to see them.

And I don’t believe for a minute that most Feminists are unaware of what they are doing. It IS about Control. Mind control of a sort: about having the power to Shut-you-up before you’ve uttered a word – because you won’t dare to say what you really think if there’s the chance you’ll lose something of value. Like your job, perhaps even your entire reputation thanks to social media.

Each success they’ve had over the years emboldens them to push harder into other frontiers. They’ve taken heart from their original 60’s/70’s Campus-Crusade for Control; carried it on to their “workplace wins” with near-total toxicity there; and now they ride the professional Conference-place Control Circuit.

“Quelle suprise!”

Thankfully “man” is no longer flying women into space or it’d be “to the moon, Alice, for Control.”

Jay

I think your conclusion has hit the nail on the head. Beautifully articulated Della. Welcome aboard.

JMoriarty

I feel stupid for taking the left-wing media’s reporting on “vaginagate” at face value when the story first broke.

Don’t feel stupid. They got a lot of people with that fakery. There is not really a mainstream medial outlet that you can trust. They all have to sell their stories, and they all have their standard audience. To really get the news, it’s usually necessary to look past the story being reported to get a better understanding of the one that isn’t.

New on Amazon

Don’t miss one of the most controversial books of our time; the unforgettable novel that will trigger feminists, arouse both men and women alike, and stay in the reader’s mind for weeks after the final chapter.

Crazy Ex? Crazy Wife or Girlfriend? Get This Book!

If you think there is nothing you can do about your crazy ex, crazy wife or crazy girlfriend, then you owe it to yourself to go to Amazon and read the reviews on this book.

Debuts in Los Angeles and New York October, 2016

Available in Paperback

Their Angry Creed: The Shocking History of Feminism, and How It Is Destroying Our Way of Life

Paul’s Corner

Advertise at AVFM

IRC Chat

Also Available at Amazon.com

Being a gay male does not mean you have to get yanked around on a feminist leash.

Something for Men From Peter Wright and Paul Elam

Sponsored links

Hot on the web

An Ear for Men

Diabetes, hyperinsulinism, metabolic disorder, cancer and heart disease are all men’s issues. And like other men’s issues much of it comes from a faulty narrative that has been crafted for the sake of profit. Paul offers some advice and some personal experience on health and nutrition